Skip to main content

Full text of "What the farming situation is like in northeastern West Virginia"

See other formats


■^ ' I 



What the Farming Situation is \M 
In Northeastern West Virginia 



;r^ 



^^ & 



^/ 



uiletin 397 April 1957 

EST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 



THE AUTHOR 

G. E. Toben is Associate Agricultural 
Economist in Farm Management in the West 
Virginia University Agricultural Experiment 
Station, and Associate Professor of Agricul- 
tural Economics. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

AcknowleclgcniLiit is made to Mr. P. E. 
Nesselroad, Assistant Agricultural Economist 
in Farm Management, for his assistance in 
contacting farmers and for supervising the 
fiekimen in the collection of data. 



West Virginia Universe 

Agricultural Experiment St.\tion 

ccjllege of agriculture, forestry, and home economics 

H. R. Varney, Director 

MORGANTOWN 



Contents 



NUMMARY 4 

Description of the Area 5 

\bandoned Farms 5 

Days of Work off Farm 5 

\CE of Operators 7 

*RODL"CTn'E W^ORK ON FarMS 8 

'roductive W^ork on the Farm and off the Farm 9 

Iange in Amount of Productive Work 10 

'artnerships 12 

"arms Managed by Women 12 

-AND Use 13 

•roportion of Farmers Growing Various Crops 15 

IZE of Crop Enterprises 16 

wELATion of Crops Produced lo Age of Operators 18 

< ^ount of Livestock 19 

; roportion of Farmers Producing Various Livestock 20 

iZE OF Livestock Enterprises 21 

elation of Livestock Production to Age of Operators 23 

MOUNT OF Work on Livestock Compared with Work on Crops 24 

'ork Stock and Farm Power 24 

ypes OF Farming 26 

OMPARISON OF MaJOR TvPES OF FarMS 28 

\lije OF Products Sold 31 

lUR-CouNTY Area Compared with the State 31 

onclusions 32 



i 



Summary 

THE study revolted in this ijullctiii was made in the sandstone and 
shale area of northeastern West Virginia. Farming in this area is 
varied. (There are many kinds, types sizes, and organizations that 
prevail.) Agricultinal production has been abandoned by 5 per cent 
of die rural families. Of those who were farming, 53 per cent spent 
full time on ihtir farms, others did some work away, and 27 per cent 
worked away 200 days or more. 

Full-time farmers averaged 58 years of age. whereas those that work- 
ed 200 days or niore away from the farm averaged 12 years younger. One- 
third of the full-time farmers were ()5 or older, one-thiril between 55 and 
64, and the remaining third less than 55 years of age. 

The days of productive work decreased with increased age of opera^ 
tor and with increases in days of work off farm. However, when days 0)i 
work off tlie farm \vere added to days of productive farm Avork then 
were no differences in the amount of productive employment by full 
time and part-time farmers. 

Many full-time faniis were small, witli 13 per cent having less thai 
50 days of productive work and 26 per cent less than 100. In contrast, ' 
per cent of the farms had more than 1,000 days of productive work. 

Similar crops were produced by tlie farmers regardless of the opera 
tor's age or the amount of work away from the farm. However, will 
increased work off fann, there was a general decrease in the proportioi 
of farmers producing all crops excej:>t truck crops and pasture. 

Similar kinds of livestock were produced by all farmers. Howevei 
a smaller proportion of farmers working away from the fami 200 da) 
or more compared with full-time farmers kept the principal class* 
of livestock. Approximately the same proportion of all ages of ful 
time farmers kept poultry. A smaller proportion of older farmers con 
jjared with younger farmers kept dairy, beef, hogs, and poultry otht 
than hens. A larger projjortion of the older farmers kept work stocl 
ewes and goats. 

Three-fourths of the full-time farmers had a specialized type < 
production. This proportion of specialization was larger for those wY 
worked away from the farm than for full-time farmers. Of the full-tin 
farmers, about 20 per cent were dairy farmers, 17 per cent beef, 11 p' 
cent poultry, 10 per cent grain, and 7 per cent fruit farmers. 

Farm income was generally low. In 1954, 60 per cent of all fan 
ers had farm sales that were less than .'>1,200 per farm. On 73 per cei 
of the farms the sales were less than 52,500. On the other hand, 3 p 
cent had sales of $25,000 or more. In spite of these low sales, the i 
come in the area is higher than the average for West Virginia. 



What the Farming Situation is Like 
In Northeastern West Virginia 

G. E. TOBEN 

THIS bulletin was written to describe the farming situation on residual 
sandstone and shale soils in northeastern West Virginia. It presents 
the farming situation as it existed in 1955; and provides a basis for 
viewing the economic position of farmers in the area. It also provides a 
basis for anticipating some changes which may occur in the future. 

Most of the data presented were obtained in connection with a 
icsearch project on the economics of forage production. The forage 
,tudy is a project conducted cooperatively with other states in the 
Mortheast.^ The area of West Virginia included in this study is part 
)f a similar area that extends into Maryland and Pennsylvania. About 
■)0U farmers were visited in order to select those who would provide 
nformation for the forage study. Those visited were selected by a 
nethod which provided each farmer in the area an equal chance to 
)e visited.- Consequently, the description of the farms and the farm- 
is visited is reasonably typical of the area. 

lescription of the Area 

The interviews were made in an area which includes all of Hamp- 
'liu: and Morgan counties, most of Mineral County, and part of 
' '-ley County. This area is east of the Alleghany Front and west 
<• Great Limestone Valley. (See cover.) 

Ill comparison with the entire State, about one-third of the area 
isoiiahly level. Armcntrout and Johnson reported that "34% of the 
iikI has a slope of less than 12% . . . The greatest amount of level 
iiui is found in Berkeley County along the edge of the Shenandoah 
lilcy; in the South Branch and Cacapon River Valleys in Hampshire 
"I I my; and in the Patterson Creek and New Creek Valleys in Mineral 
'iiiity . . . The best crop land is found in Hampshire County in the 
"Mil Branch Valley."' 

I I he rf'gionui project Is entitled "fiJconomico of Forage Production and Utilization." 
T'Ms project was supported by funds made po.sslble by the Research and Marketing 

' ii'- iirca method of sampling was used. It Involved subdividing the entire area Into 

iKraphlcal segments havlnK 4,000 acres each. Eighty sample segments were selected 

• ■■IK table of random numbers. All rural families living within each sample segment 

iitervlewed. 

Vrmentrout. VV. W. and .lohnson, T. D., Types of Fnrminn in West Vtrglnia, W. Va. Agr. 
Hta. Bui. 292, 1939, p. 27. 



Some of the area is steep . . . "9',; has a slope of o\er 409< . . ■ The 
tops and sides of the ridges for the most part are forested. The clear- 
ed side slopes for the most part are poor crop land or average pasture 
land, with the valley land being average or below-average crop land. 
On the tops and sides of ridges, the soils and the air and water drain- 
age in many sections are well suited to tree fruits, but this land is 
too steep or too rocky for fieldcrop production."' 

The area covered by this survey is part of the Juniata-Potomac 
Section. "The total area is about 5,000,000 acres of which slightly over 
one-half is in farms. 

"It has a cool, temperate humid climate with from 30 to 45 inches 
of rainfall. The frost-free growing season ranges from 140 to 170 days. 
Considerable local variation results from the mountainous terrain. The 
area is subject to severe flash floods."' 

Abandoned Farms 

There were 513 interviews in the preliminary stage of the study oi 
the economics of forage production. Twenty-five of these visits wen 
with rural families living on land formerly operated as farms. In 195! 
no farming other than a home garden was done on any of thesi 
units. None of these families kept livestock or poultry. 

These former farms varied from 13 to 334 acres and averaged 9 
acres. Twenty-one were o\Mier occupied. The other four were oc 
cupied by tenants. 

In 60 per cent of these cases the liead of the household had full-tim 
employment away from the farm. Eight per cent had part-time employ 
ment, and in 12 per cent the head of the household was a widov 
The other 20 per cent were retired men who varied from 60 to 9 
years of age. 

Days of Work off Farm 

In West Virginia 57 per tent of the fanners had off-farm emplo 
ment." However, in the area studied 53 per cent of the farrae 
did not work away from their farm (Table 1). Twenty per cent d 
some work off their farm. The remaining 27 per cent of the operate 
worked awav from the fann 200 davs or more. 



• Arnienlrijut aud JohriHon, oi>. u:l., pp. 27-28. 

^Patrick, Austin L.. Problem Artas in Soil Conservation, Northcattern Reaion, UBI 
SCS. .VE Itog. HDQ., fpppr Dnrby. Pa., May inril. p. 3r>. 

OU. S. Dppartment of Commerce. Bureau of Census. 1954, Census of AgricvHiir 
PrcUmlnnry. 

6 



Table 1. Number of Farmers Included in the Study by Age and 

Days of ^VoRK. Off Farm, in the Shale Area of Berkeley, Morgan, 

Hampshire, and Mineral Counties, 1955 



Age of 




Days of Work Off Farm 




All 


Faemees 


NONE 


1-49 


50-99 


100-199 


200 & OVEK 


Farmers 


:; .t under .... 


No. 
4 
19 
28 
38 
75 
66 
28 

2fi8 

58 


No. 

6 
8 
9 
6 
2 
1 
.32 

44 


No. 

6 
5 
8 
5 
4 

28 

48 


No. 

6 
8 

10 
8 
4 


36 

48 


No. 

1 

28 

35 

36 

18 

15 

1 

134 

46 


No. 
5 
65 


35-44 


84 




101 




112 


65-74 


91 


75 & over 


30 
488 


Average age .. 


53 



Age of Operators 



The youngest visited was 16 and the oldest was 91 years of age. Both 
were full-time farmers. The average age for full-time fanners was 58. 
Those who worked away from the farm 200 days or more averaged 46 
years of age. Those who did some ^vork away from the farm also were 
younger than full-time farmers. 

Of all the farmers visited, only 1 per cent were less than 25 years 
of age. The proportion was the same for those who were farming on a 
full-time basis (no work off their farms) and those who had full-time 
employment away from the farm (worked 200 days or more away from 
their farms). Except for this youngest group, there was considerable dif- 
ference in the age structure of those spending full time on the farm and 
■ If with full-time employment away from the farm. Many of the 
time farmers were well along in years. Eleven per cent were 75 
>ears of age or older, more than one-third were 65 and over, nearly a 
hird were between 55 and 64, and the other third were less than 55. 
This indicates that there were more farmers who were old enough to 
■low down or retire than young men who were beginning full-time 
Hiing. This is likely to bring about some changes. It may result in 
' 1 fulitime farmers, a combination of farms, part-time farmers, or 
II idle farms. Any one of these or other changes may bring about a 
'lifferent system or type of farming. 

Farmers with 200 days or more of work away from their farms 

considerably younger than full-time farmers. One-third of these 

vere under 41 years of age and two-thirds were under 51. In contrast, 

ihe farmer spending full time on the farm had less than half as large 

proportion within these two age gioups. Only 15 per cent of the fuU- 

iinc farmers were under 41 and 28 per cent under 51. Farmers who 



had part-time ciuployment away from the farm had age distributions 
that fell between those spending fnll linic on the farm and those with 
full-time employment away from the fann. 

A large part of the work off the farm by those who spent from 
1 to 49 days off the farm was custom Avork. Their average age was 
14 years less than the age for full-time farmers. It was also less than the 
age for farmers who did more ^vork away from the farm. 

Of those fanners 65 or older, a considerably larger proportion 
were spending full time on the fann than off the farm. To some ex- 
tent the increased proportion of older farmers who were full-time 
fanners occurred because of a discontinuance of part-time woi^k off the 
farm. Only to a very small extent was it caused by operators quitting a 
full-time job away from the farm and devoting their full employment on 
the farm. 



Productive Work on Farms 

One way to compare the size of business on different farms is to 
measure it in productive man work units. This expresses size in average 
labor needs under West Virginia conditions. A productive man work 
unit represents the amount of work usually done by a man in a ten- 
hour day on crops and livestock. The conversion unit for each crop 
and head of livestock is based on averages for West Virginia farmers 
(Table 2). 

In general the amount of productive work declined as the amount 
of work off of the farm increased (Table 3). Farmers who spent full 



Table 2. Productive Man Work Unit Factor for Selected 
Crops and Livestock in West Virginia* 



Kind op Chop 


WoKK Units 
Pkb Acbs 


Kind of Livestock 


Work UNiTf 
Per Head 




5.0 

- 4.5 

2.0 

2.5 

.S.O 

1.0 

0.8 

3.0 

10.0 

11.0 

12.0 

10.0 

11.0 

25.0 




14.0 
S 














Kwcs (Including lambs) 




























Chicken broilers 


















Ooat-i 



















•Tobcn, G. E., BuslneHa AnalyalH for Wast Virginia Farmers. Department of AgrlcuUur 
Economics and Rural SocloIoKy, West Virginia University. Oct., 1953. 



Table 3. 



Productive Man Work Units by Age of Farmers and 
Days of Work Off Farm, 1955 



Age of 




Days op Work Off 


Farm 




Fakmers 


None 


1-49 


50-99 


100-199 


200 & Over 






Produc 


ive man work 


units 






393 








135 


25-34 


1108 


321 


287 


150 


95 


35-44 


338 


387 


148 


117 


139 


45-54 


546 


242 


156 


182 


69 




269 


169 


146 


223 




65-74 


266 


42 


56 


62 


124 


75 & over 


157 


29 






34 


All ages 


369 


260 


167 


158 


108 


Days off farm 





34 


76 


151 


270 



time on their faiTns had a size of business that averaged 369 produc- 
tive man work units. This means that under average management 
these fanners would have used 369 days of work on their crops and 
their productive livestock. Besides this they would have repair, main- 
tenance and other work not directly related to income-producing enter- 
prises. 

Farmers who spent 200 or more days at work off the farm averaged 
108 work units on their farms. This was 29 per cent of the size of busi- 
ness of full-time farmers. 

After full-time farmers passed their middle fifties tlieir amount oi 
aroductive work decreased rapidly. Farmers between 55 and 64 years 
jf age had about one-half as much productive work as those 45-54. 
Farmers past 75 had less than half as much productive work as all 
ull-time farmers. 

Farmers who did no work off the farm had a larger range in the 
imount of productive work than farmers who had full-time jobs 
iway from their farms. Some of the farmers who did no work off the 
arm had businesses as small as the smallest sizes of those operators 
vho worked 200 or more days off the farm. In contrast, 10 per cent 
>f the farmers who did not work away from the farm had businesses 
arger than the largest operator with full-time work away from the farm. 

'reductive Work on the Farm and Off the Farm 

When each day of work off the farm was added to the j)roductivc 
<iork units on the farm, little difference was found in the productive 
rork of full-time farmers and farmers with full-time work off the farm 
'Table 4) . One of the major differences between the two groups was 
hat the amount of productive work did not cliange with age when the 
armcr had a full-time job off the farm. In contrast, tlie amount of 
roducti\e work decreased with age when the operator spent full time 

9 



Table 4. Productive Work on and Off the Farm by Ace of 
Farmers and Days of Work Off Farm, 1955* 



Age or 




DATS or Work Off 


Farm 




Farmers 


NONB 


1-49 


50-99 


100-199 


200 A OVBB 




893 

1108 
338 
546 
269 
266 
157 
369 


Pr oil in 

347 
413 
291 
195 

64 

59 
294 


live vork in 

367 
226 
238 
215 
118 

243 


days 

306 
269 
327 
375 
212 

309 


435 


25-34 


354 


35-44 


405 


46-54 


343 


55-64 


410 


6B-74 


411 




334 




378 







on the fann. It also decreased with increased age wlien the operator 
spent some time, but less than 200 days, off the farm. 

Range in Amount of Productive Worl( 

When the productive work units on individual farms were array 
ed from the smallest to the largest, 13 per cent of the full-time farm 
ers had less than 50 days of productive work on their farms, and an 
other 13 per cent had from 50 to 99 days of productive work (Table 5) 
Fifteen per cent had from 100 to 149 work units. These three group; 
represented 41 j)er cent of the full-time fanners. Even though the numbei 
of productive work units is small, these farmers probably were fully em 
ployed on their farms during the entire year. However, the entire laboi 
force accomplished less productive work than could have been accom 
plished by one man working half time under typical West Virginia con 
ditions. 

Some of the faiTners had enough work units to produce a gooi 
level of living with efficient management. Thirty-eight per cent of th 
full-time farmers had 300 or more work units on their farms. Seven pc 
cent had 1,000 or more work units. These largest farmers were prin 
arily apple or poultry producers. 

The proportion of fanners with a small number of work uni 
was greater for older men than for young men. None of the ful 
time farmers under 35 years of age had fewer than 50 work unii 
whereas more than 20 per cent of those 65 or older had less than 
work units. Table 6 brings together in a cumulative manner the rcl 
lion between productive work and age of operator on small and mediu 
size farms. It shows that with increases in the interval of size fro 
very small through medium, there was only a small inaease in the pr 
portion of young farmers who were included. However, as the a; 
increased there was an increase in the proportion of farmers within tl 

10 



Table 5. Proportion of Farmers Having Various Amounts 
Productive Work by Age of Operators and Days of Work 
Off FarMj 1955 



Pkodxjctive Man 






Age of 


Operators 






Work Units 


34 & Undeb 


35-44 


45-54 


55-64 


65-74'' 


75 & Over 


All Ages 


Farmers with no 
days oft farm 


% 

4 




13 
5 

22 
4 

13 
4 

9 

4 
22 

38 
28 
10 

10 
10 

4 


% 

7 


18 

7 

7 

11 

18 

14 

3 

7 

4 

4 

23 
28 
14 
20 
6 

6 
3 


% 

5 
3 

13 
8 
5 

10 
8 
6 
8 

10 
5 

3 
13 
3 

31 

42 

22 

5 


% 

12 
17 

20 
9 
7 
3 

12 
7 
2 
1 

3 
4 
3 

33 
28 
17 
6 
6 

5 

5 


% 

23 

16 

16 

8 

7 
4 
8 
5 
2 
2 
1 

3 
3 

2 

38 
31 
19 

6 
6 


% 

21 
28 
11 
7 
11 
4 
4 
14 


% 
13 




13 




15 


150-199 


7 


200-249 


8 




6 




9 




9 




3 


600-699 


4 


700-799 


2 


BOO-899 


1 




3 




4 


2000 & Over 

Parmers working 

iff farm 

1-49 


3 
31 




32 


00-149 


17 


50-199 


10 


:00-249 


4 


:50-299 





00-399 


1 


00-499 


1 


00-599 


1 


00-699 


1 


00-799 


1 


00-899 


1 







•For farmers working off farm 200 days or more, tlie age group is 65 and over. 



^ABLE 6. Cumulative Proportion of Full-Time Farmers Having 
Selected Amounts of Productive Work by Age of Operator, 1955 



iliUCTITB MA^ 

Work Units 


A<3E OF Operators 


34 & 
Undeb 


35-44 


45-54 


55-64 


65-74 


75 & 
OVBB 


All Ages 


-49 


% 


17 


% 

7 
25 
32 
39 


% 
5 
8 
21 
29 
34 
44 


% 
12 
29 
49 
58 
65 
68 


% 
23 
39 
55 
63 
70 
74 


% 

21 
49 
60 
67 
78 
82 


% 
13 


-99 


26 


-149 


41 


-199 


48 


■249 


56 


-299 


62 








trious intervals. Farms of less than 300 work units included only 17 


f-r cent of the farmers under 35 years of age; whereas farms with up to 


10 work units included 50 per cent of the farmers aged 35 to 44, 74 per 


, jnt of those aged 65 to 74, and 82 per cent of those 75 or older. 








11 











Fanners with a small number ol work units usually have a small 
quantity of products to sell. Therefore, it is quite likely that they will 
have low earnings. 

The diifcrence in size of business between farmers under 35 years of 
age and those older is so great that it suggests that younger farmers in 
the area are now operating larger businesses than were formerly operated 
by young farmers. If this is the case it indicates an improvement ^vhicli 
may make it possible for fanners to earn a higher level of living in tht 
future. 

As might be expected, farmers with a full-time job away from thi 
farm had a small size of farm business. Thirty-one per cent had less than 
50 productive work units on their famis. Sixty-three per cent had les^ 
than 100 work units and 90 per cent had less than 200 work units. These 
operators and others with larger farm businesses did not necessarily opei 
ate the farms alone. There was help from other members of the famih 
and some hired helj). These operators, however, did assume the respoii 
sibility of management. ■ 



Partnerships 



Sixteen per cent of the farms were operated with a partnership xt 
rangement in which the partner was someone other than a wife. Foun 
teen per cent of the partnerships involved three or more managem 
In all instances one partner was reported to have the major responsibilitj' 
In two-thirds of the cases this was the oldest partner. 

The family relationship between partners was not determineo 
However, in 80 per cent of the 77 partnerships there was an age dil 
ference of 20 or more years between partners. In 89 per cent of the at 
rangements involving three or more partners, the range in age bctwee; 
the youngest and oldest was more than 20 years. This suggests that man 
of the partnerships could be between parents and children. 

There was no consistent difference in the amount of productive wor 
between farmers with and tliose without partnerships (Table 7). Hov 
ever, a comparison between full-time farms in the different age grouf 
showed that the smallest farms with partnerships were not so small 
the smallest farms without partnerships. Even with partnerships li 
number of work units on the farms began to decrease after the senii 
partner passed his middle fifties. 



I 



Farms Managed by Women 

Other tlian the wives of farm operators, women were the manage! 
or partneis in the management on 6 per cent of the farms visited. Tb 
group included 27 women who managed their farms alone. Two hs 

12 






\BLE 7. Work Units on Farms with One Manager and on Farms 
WITH A Partner, by Age of the Principal Partner and Days of 
Work off Farms, 1955 



Age of 

Manager or 

Major 

Partner 



Farms With One Manager by 
Dai'b of Work Off Farm 



200 & 
Over 



Farms With a Male Partner by 
Days of Work Off Farm 



200 & 
Over 







Productive 


mcin work units 




1402 


337 


90 


95 


478 


238 


180 


342 


260 


85 


144 


371 


488 


170 


491 


180 


133 


69 


723 


371 


295 


239 


144 


75 


142 


524 


307 


471 


211 


51 


62 


124 


489 






141 


29 




34 


295 






210 


51 


23 


126 


48 


9 


13 



110 
100 



' IS who were junior partners and four had sons who assumed major 
1 .ponsibility for the management. 

Of the 27 women managers, four had part-time work away from the 
1 m and four had full-time jobs away from the farm. The women who 
lid part-time jobs away from the farm averaged 85 days of work away 
f m the farm; their farm business averaged 57 productive man work 
I its. The women with full-time jobs away from the farm averaged 
i -' days away; their farm business averaged 25 productive man work 
I its. 

The size of the farm business in which women were partners was 

1 ^e relative to that of other farms in the area. This was true whether 

' women assumed major responsibility for management or whether 

ii sons assumed this role. The average size of business on farms with 

Minan partner was 733 work units. 

lost of the women who did not have off-farm employment and 

managed their farms without a partner had a small farm business. 

iiy-six per cent of them had less than 100 productive man work 

Only one woman operated a business that was larger than the 

-;e of all farmers. She operated a farm that had 892 work units. 

Lid Use 

1 he various uses of the land on farms where the operators worked 
and uses on full-time farms weic similar (Table 8.) . The principal 
lence was in acreage. In general the acreage deceased as the 
Hint of work away from the farm increased. 

!■ armors who spent full time on the farm had an average of 18 acres 
iiltivatcd and close giown crops. The operators with full-time em- 
inent away from the farm averaged eight acres. Corn and small 
ris were the principal cultivated and close grown crops. Part of 

13 



Table 8. Average Land Use on Farms by the 
OF Work Off Farm, 1955* 


Number 


DF Days 




Days of Work Off Faem 


All 
Farms 


ijLitD Use 


None 


1-99 


100-199 


200 & 
Over 


Corn Grain 

Corn Silage 

Small Grain tor Grain .. 
Small Grain tor Forage 


Acres 
6 

2 
8 

1 
1 



Acres 
8 
1 
s 
1 
1 




Acres 
4 
1 

7 




Acres 
4 

3 
1 




Acrea 

1 



1 


Potatoes and Tomatoes 


Total Cultivated & 


18 

18 

6 

2 
2 


19 

14 

4 

1 
3 


12 
9 

5 

2 
3 


8 
8 
3 



1 


14 

1 
16 1 

5 

1 
2 1 


Grass & Legumes 


Grass & Legumes 


Grass & Legumes .... 






All Tillable Cropland .... 

Permanent Pasture 

Woodland Pasture 


46 

75 

58 

6 

1 

164 

6 


41 
47 
38 


84 
6 


31 

51 

55 

1 

1 

150 

3 


20 
33 
31 

1 

48 
4 


37 ' 
58 1 

1i 
1 
122 

5 ' 


Peach fi Cherry Orchard 


Farmstead and Waste .. 


Total 


356 
166 


216 
94 


292 
79 


137 
52 


274 
118 


Work Units on Crops .... 


•A zero designates 
farmer' reported the cr 


less than on 

3P. 


e-half acre. 


A dash deslgi 


lates that none ot^'tl, 



both of these crops was harvested as grain and a small part as silage 
as a hay crop. Regardless of the amount of work away from the fa 
the average acreage in corn was about the same as lor small grains. 

The aaeage of tillable land used for hay and pasture exceeded i 
comljined total in cultivated and in close grown crops. This WOU 
give a cropping system on the tillable land that approximated a rotatiJ 
of corn, small grain, and three years of hay. 

The majority of the hay land was cut only once. On the far 
with 100 to 199 days of work off the farm, 56 per cent received c 
cutting. On the other farms, from 69 to 74 per cent was cut just on 
Only 8 per cent of the acreage of hay was cut three times on the fai 
where the operator spent full time on the farm. 

Even though orcharding is economically important to the ai 
the acreage of orchards when averaged with all land in farms is srn 
being only four acres per farm. 

Regardless of the amount of work off farms, the acreage in oj 
permanent pasture exceeded that in all grain and hay crops. Besi 

14 



he open permanent pasture a considerable acreage of woodland was 
:>asture. This woodland pasture represented about 18 per cent of the 
jmd in farms. 

Timber that was not pastured occupied 45 per cent of the land in 

inns. On the farms where the operator worked 200 days or more off 

ilie fann, timber accounted for ,^5 per cent of the farm land. On the 

ther farms the proportion was larger. On those farms where the op- 

rator worked off the farm from 100 to 199 days the timber that was not 

astured accounted for 51 per cent of the land. Timber produces a very 

nail income for farmers in the area. 

AVooded land, which includes the woodland pasture and timber 

.tnd, accounts for more than 60 per cent of the farm land in the area. 

1 contrast, tillable land and orchards represented only 15 per cent of 

le total land in farms. 

j Farmers who worked off their farms had fewer acres in their farms 
lan operators who did not work away. As the amount of work off the 
rm increased, the acreage tended to decrease. In addition, the amount 

r productive work on crops decreased as the work off the farm in- 
eased. Farmers who did not work off the farm averaged 166 work 
lits on crops. The work units decreased to 52 on those farms where 

I e operators worked away 200 days or more. 

oportion of Farmers Growing Various Crops 

1 Some crops were usually grown on most farms (Table 9) . Hay, for 
'I ample, was produced by 85 per cent of the farmers, whereas less than 
J per cent produced soybeans, tomatoes, potatoes, peaches, or cherries. 
I J some extent there were differences which were associated with the 
jiount of work off the farm. As the amount of work off the farm in- 

;ased, there was a decrease in the proportion of farmers producing all 
I ; crops except truck crops and pasture. 

Corn is an important crop in this area. Two-thirds of the farmers 

jduced corn. Nearly all harvested some of the corn as grain. Only 1 1 

r cent of all farmers harvested some as silage. A smaller proportion 
.1 sad small grains than raised corn. Small grains were harvested as 

lin crops by 5?> per cent of the farmers. Ten per cent harvested some 

Jail grains as hay or silage crops. The proportion of farmers who pro- 
ced corn and small grains was larger among those who did no work 
farm than among those who worked away 200 days or more. 
More farmers produced hay than corn and small grains. As the 

3ount of work off the farm increased, the proportion of farmers har- 
ting hay decreased. The amount of this decrease was comparable to 
decrease which occurred with corn or small grain and the ratio of the 
-. of grain to hay remained the same. 
15 



Table 9. 



PERCEiNTAGE OF FARMERS GROWING SELECTED CrOPS BY THE 

Number of Days of Work Off Farm^ 1955 





Uavs of Work Off Fabm 


Aix 
Fabms 


Land Use 


NONB 


1-99 


100-199 


200 & 
Over 




Per Cent 
71 
65 
17 
59 
10 

4 

1 

4 
90 
41 
4S 
16 
11 
94 
60 
10 

3 

4 
82 
100 


Per Cent 

75 

75 

7 

62 

in 

5 

2 

2 
88 
47 
43 
12 
13 
88 
65 

3 



2 
87 
100 


Per Cent 
64 
61 
11 

61 

2 

(1 


78 
44 
33 
14 
11 
94 
75 
11 

6 

6 
83 
100 


Per Cent 
54 
54 

.•! 
30 

7 

1 

1 

75 
39 

36 

8 

7 
88 
63 

4 

1 

2 
68 
100 


Per Cent 

67 




63 




11 


Small grain for grain .. 
Small grnio for forage 


53 
10 
3 




1 


Tomatoes _. 

Qraas and legume hay .. 

All cut only once .... 

Some cut twice 

Some cut 3 times 


4 

85 
42 
43 

13 
10 


Open permanent pasture 
Woodland pasture 


92 
63 
8 




2 




3 




79 




100 











It was observed that about 42 per cent of all farmers cut all their 
hay only once. TJic proportion who had only one cutting was about 
the same for full-time farmers as it was for those working away from 
the fami 200 days or more. Only 16 per cent of the full-time fanner^ 
cut some— not all— of their hay a third time. This proportion was reduced 
to 8 per cent for tliose fanners who worked away 200 days or more. 

Open permanent pasture is common in the area. Although thi' 
pasture is primarily bluegrass, much of it includes broom sedge. Ninetv 
two per cent of all farmers had permanent pasture on their farms. 15i 
sides this permanent pasture, about two-thirds of the farmers also pa 
tured land which had enough trees on it to be classed as woodland pa' 
ture. Only to a small extent were they using rotation-type crops fo 
pasture. 

From an income standpoint, fruit is important to the area. Frui 
generally accounts for more than one-fourth of the value of all farm pn 
ducts sold. However, the proportion of farmers producing fruit is smal 
Only 10 per cent of the full-time farmers produced apples, 3 per cei 
produced peaches, and 4 per cent harvested cherries. Of the farmei 
working off the farm 200 days or more, only 4 per cent produced applt 
I per cent had peaches, and 2 per cent had cherries. 



Size of Crop Enterprises 



The acreages of crops declined with increased amounts of work awfl 
from the farm for all crops except small grain silage and rotation pastu^Ht 

16 



(Table 10). HoTvever, deaeases did not occur with grain crops until 
the amount of work away from the farm exceeded 100 days. 

From the standpoint of the economic use of large-scale machinery, 
the average acreage of grain crops was small. The average amount of 
corn on full-time farms was only 12 acres. If the com was harvested as 
igrain, the average was nine; if it was harvested as silage, the average was 
13 acres. Acreages of small grains and soybeans were also small. Farm- 
ers who cut all their hay only once had smaller acieages than those who 
cut some of their hay more than once. Full-time fanners cutting all hay 
once averaged 24 acres. Those who cut some of the acreage more than 
DHce averaged M acres in hay, and 1.^ acres cut a second and a third 
time. However, as indicated previously, only a third as many farmers 
jiade a third cutting as made a second cutting. (See Table 9). 

The apple orchards on full-time farms averaged 57 acres. Acreages 
n peach and cherry orchards were less. The orchards on full-time farms 
lave a larger average acreage than found on farms where the operator 
vorks away. The acreage of apple orchards on farms where the operator 
vorkcd away 200 days or more was larger than on farms where the op- 
Tators did some work away from the farm but were gone less than 200 
lays. This average was influenced materially by one operator who had 
'4 acres of apple orchard. All other operators ■ivorking 200 days or more 
way from the farm had 10 acres or less of apple orchard. 



Table 10. Average Number of Acres of Each Crop on the Farms 

Which Produced the Crop by the Number of Days 

OF Work Off Farm, 1955 


Land Use 


Days of Work Oft Fabm 


All 

Farm a 


None 


1-99 


100-199 


200 & 
Over 




Acres 
12 
9 
13 
14 
6 
9 
2 
7 
29 
24 

34 
13 
13 
16 
80 
97 
57 
14 
12 
198 


Acres 
11 
10 

8 
14 

6 
14 

7 

1 
22 
20 

24 

8 
7 
22 
53 
59 
10 

12 
97 


Acres 
7 
7 
6 

11 
15 

20 
16 

26 
14 
11 
29 

54 
74 
11 
10 
2 
179 


Acres 
7 
6 
9 

8 
6 
1 
2 
16 
14 

18 

9 

6 

14 

38 

49 

21 

3 

3 

71 


Acres 
ID 




9 




12 


mall grain for grain .. 
mall grain for silage .. 


13 
6 
9 




2 






1 rass & legume hay .. 


20 


Some cut more than 


28 




12 


1 Cut 3 times 


11 




17 


len permanent pasture 
'oodland pasture 


C4 
77 

4.'; 




12 


'ferry orchard 


9 




153 










17 









The farmers who had the largest acreages of selected crops raised 
140 acres of corn, 100 of corn silage, 85 of corn grain, 30 of soybeans, 75 of 
all small grains harvested for grain, 200 of small grains harvested as forage, 
250 of hay, 75 of hay which was cut three times, 80 of tall grass rotation 
pasture, 800 of open permanent pasture, 8,585 of timber, 20 of tomatoes, 
7 of other truck crops, 320 of apples, 30 of peaches, and 25 acres of 
cherries. 

From these numbers the acreages declined rapidly. The average acre- 
age of all aops on the 10 per cent of farms growing the largest acreages 
of crops was less than 100 acres for all crops except permanent pasture 
and timber (Table 11). The 10 per cent of the farmers who grew specific 
crops and had the largest acreages averaged 326 acres of open permanent 
pasture, 1,021 of timber, 45 of corn, and 96 acres of hay. 

The 10 per cent of the farmers who produced the various crops but 
had the smallest acreage, really hatl small acreages. These farmers had 
an average of one acre of corn, two of small grain for grain, three of hay, 
seven of open permanent pasture, and nine acres of timber. 

Relation of Crops Produced to Age of Operators 

The proportion of full-time farmers growing certain crops was as- 
sociated with age. A smaller proportion of the older farmers were pro- 
ducing corn for grain, corn silage, and small grains harvested for grain 
(Table 12). There was a noticeable decline in the proportion growinp 
tree fruits and tomatoes as the age increased. Thirteen per cent of thost 
under 35 years of age produced tomatoes for market, but none of thi 
farmers over 75 produced tomatoes for market. 

The age of the operator had no effect on the proportion of farmer 
producing pasture, small grain silage and hay. However, there was : 

Table 11. Range in Size of Selected Crops in Acres by Thosi 

Farm IRS who did Nor Work Ofe the Farm and who 

Raised the Crops, 1955 









All 








SIZB Oboupinob 


Corn Fob 


SMALL 


Biennial 


All Hay 


Open 




Prom Ljirqebt 


Grain or 


Grain 


& Peren- 


Cut 3 


Permanent 


TiMBBB 


To Smalijest 


Silage 


For Grain 


nial 
Hay 


Times 


Pabtdrb 




Per Cent 


Acres 


Acres 


Acres 


Acres 


Acres 


\a-et 


91-100 


45 
21 


38 
25 


96 
48 


51 
22 


326 
148 


1021 
350 


81-90 


71-80 


14 


18 


36 


16 


92 


222 


61-70 


11 


15 


30 


11 


68 


125 


51-60 




12 








94 


41-BO 


6 


10 


19 


6 


40 


70 


31-«0 


6 


8 


16 


5 


32 


57 


21-30 


4 


6 


11 


4 


24 


39 


11-20 


2 

1 


5 
2 


6 
3 


3 
2 


17 

7 


22 
9 


1-10 










18 









Table 12. Percentage of Farmers Not Working Off the Farm who 

Grew Selected Crops, According to the Age of 

the Farmers, 1955 









Age op 


Fahmees 






Laud Use 


34 & 

Under 


35-44 


45-54 


55-64 


65-74 


75 & 
Over 




% 

87 

78 

39 

65 

4 

4 

C 

13 

96 

22 

74 

22 

9 

100 

43 

30 

13 

13 

100 


% 

79 

75 

14 

64 

14 

7 



14 

89 

39 

50 

14 

7 

88 

79 

7 





79 


% 
74 
68 
16 
74 
11 
11 

5 
87 
34 
53 
18 
11 
95 
58 
13 

8 
87 


% 

71 

65 

16 

59 

12 

3 



1 

88 

41 

47 

17 

19 

95 

6 

5 

1 

1 

83 


% 

62 

55 

12 

53 

9 

2 

2 

3 

89 

50 

39 

14 

3 

92 

58 

12 

5 

5 

79 


% 




64 




14 


Small grain for grain 

Small grain for forage 


50 
11 
4 













93 




50 




43 




11 






Woodland pasture „ 


96 
61 









4 




71 







Jefinite relation between age and the number of cuttings of hay. Twenty- 
wo per cent of farmers under 35 years of age cut all their hay once. The 
Droportion getting only one cutting increased to 50 per cent for those 
armers who were 65 years of age or older. Third cuttings of hay from 
■ome of the land were made on only half as many farms where the op- 
;rator was 75 or older when compared with those under 35 years of age. 

Imount of Livestock 

I Livestock on farms deaeased as the amount of work off the farm 
ncreased (Table 13) . This decrease occurred with all classes of live- 
tock with the exception of sows. In this case an average of only one 
ow was kept on all farms in the various work-offlarm classes. 

Besides expressing livestock in numbers, they were also measured in 
)roductive man work units. This provided a common measure so that 
11 classes of livestock other than work stock could be added. Using this 
neasure, it was determined that the full-time farmers had enough live- 
tock to account for 203 productive man work units. Those who worked 
way from the farm from one to 99 days had 60 per cent as much live- 
tock or 123 work units. Farmers who worked away from the farm for 
00 to 199 days had only 79 work units or 39 per cent as much stock as 
ull-time farmers. Farm operators who worked away 200 or more days 
ad 56 work units of productive livestock. This was 28 per cent as many 
s on farms where there was no work done away from the farm. 

19 



Table 13. 



Amount of Livestock on Farms by the Number of Days 
OF Work Off Farm, 1955 



Kind op Livestock 



Dairy cows 

Beef cows 

Other cattle 

E^ee 

Sows 

Hogs raised 

Chicken broilers 

Hens 

Other chickens 

Turkey poults and 
broilers 

Work units of livestock 



Days of Wokk Ott Fahm 



200 & Over 



Ai.1. 
Farmb 



■3 



Proportion of Farmers Producing Various Livestocl( 

Not all fanners kept each class of livestock (Table 14). Seventy 
seven per cent kept hens. Dairy cows were next in frequency of ini' 
portance. They were kept by 60 per cent of the farmers. Some of th( 
farmers did not keep their calves beyond weaning age. Conseqiiently;l| 
the proportion reporting other cattle was somewhat smaller. Beef cowi 
were kept by about half of the farmers. Forty-three per cent of all farm' 
ers raised some hogs. Many of these were raising purchased feeder pigs; 
only 28 jjcr cent ke])l sows. About a third kept ewes. Nine per ceni 
of the farmers were raising chicken broilers. One per cent sold turkeyi 
broilers and 1 per cent sold thcni at heavier weights. 

A comparison of farmers who did not work away from the fanr 
^vith those who worked away up to 99 days showed little difference ill. 

Table 14. Percentage of Farmers Producing Selected Classes oi| 
Livestock by the Number of Days of Work Off Farm, 1955 



Days op Work Off Paem 



Kind of Livestock 



Dairy cows 

Beef cows 

Other cattle 

E!wes 

Sows 

Hogs rained 

Chicken broilers 

Hens 

Other chickens ... 
Turkey poults ... 
Turkey broilers . 

Ducks 

Ooats 



200 & OVEB 



All 
Fabms 



Cen 
60 



20 



j:he proportions keeping each class of livestock and poultry. Similar pro- 
!x)rtions of those who worked away from 100 to 199 days kept beef cows 
!md hogs. For other classes of livestock, except goats, there was some 
jlecrease in the proportion of farmers who kept them. As work off farm 
'ncreased beyond 200 days there were furtlier decreases in the percentage 
|)f farmers keeping individual classes of livestock. Exceptions to this oc- 
urred with those classes that are relatively uncommon, namely ponies 
nd draft stock not worked and turkey broilers. 

Differences occurred between farmers who did no work and those 
yho did 200 days or more of work off their farm in the percentage of 
perators who kept each class of livestock or poultry. About 80 per cent 
s many of those with 200 days or more work off fann compared with 
jll-time farmers kept dairy cows, hens, other chickens for hen replace- 
lent, and sows. Approximately two-thirds as many raised beef cows, 
attle other than cows, ewes, and feeder hogs. Less than half as many 
■orking away 200 days compared with those doing no work away from 
le farm kept chicken broilers. 



ize of Livestock Enterprises 



Full-time fanners who kept various kinds of livestock averaged six 
dry cows, 15 beef cows, 32 ewes, and three sows. Regardless of whether 
rmers fed jiigs born on the farm or whether they purchased their pigs, 
ley averaged 17 pigs fed to market weight. (Table 15). 

Laying flocks were generally small. The average number of hens in 
e flock on farms where the operator spent full time on the fann was 
•5. Those who raised their replacements raised an average of 156 birds 
go into the laying house or to sell at fryer weights. Those producing 

ABLE 15. Average Number of Each Kind of Lfvestock on the 
Farms Which Produced the Livestock, by the Number of Days 
OF Work Off Farm, 1955 



Kind of Livestock 



Iry cowH 

it cows 

ler caUle 

OS 

i fB 

II 58 raised 

(j ck«n broilers 

I IS 

tier chickens .. 
''■key poulta .... 
Vkey broilers .. 
Ihks 

<u« 



Days op Work Off Farm 



17 

17,183 

105 

156 

6.733 

20,000 

11 

54 



154 
192 



100-199 



200 & OrER 



All 
Farms 



13.393 

79 

115 

5,557 

10,900 

7 

32 



21 



chicken broilers averaged about 17,000 per year. Turkey broiler producers 
averaged 20,000 per year. When the turkeys were kept to heavier weights 
the average number was 6,7.S3 per farm. 

With the exception of work stock and sows, the average number of 
other livestock kept per fami that had these animals decreased as the 
\^ork off farm increased. Decreases occurred irregularly. 

A comparison between farmers spending full time on the farm and 
those working 200 days or more away from the farm showed little dif- 
ference in the number of sows. Those farmers who worked away for 
200 or more days averaged 59 per cent as many hogs as those who did not 
work away. Ewe flocks were 81 per cent as large. For all other classes 
of livestock and poultry the nimiber on farms where the operator worked 
away 200 days or more was not over half as large as the number on full 
time farms. The gieatest differences occurred with poultry. Farmer' 
working away 200 days or more who kept hens averaged 40 birds pei 
farm. This was 38 per cent as many hens as kept by full-time farmers 
Those farmers with 200 days of work off farm produced 40 per cen 
as many replacement birds, 29 per cent as many chicken broilers, and l' 
per cent as many turkey broilers as did those full-time fanners whi 
raised such birds. 

The largest numbers of livestock that were reported by any farme 
were 102 beef cows, 54 dairy cows, 136 head of other cattle, 350 ewes, 4: 
sows, 500 hogs raised, 4 work animals, 3,000 hens, 212,000 chicken broilers 
41,000 turkey poults, and 28,000 turkey broilers. From these number 
the sizes of enterprises decline very rapidly (Table 16) . The averag 
number of head in each class of livestock and poultry in the 10 pf 
cent largest herds or flocks is more than twice as large as the averag 
number in the next 10 per cent. Many farmers who kept different kind 



Table 16. Range in Numbers of Livestock for Those Farmers WhI 

Did No Work Off the Farm and Who Raised the Class 

of Livestock, 1955 



Size Gbowp- 
inos trom 
Largest to 

SMAUjEBT 







Cattle 












Beef 


Dairy 


Other 




Sows 


Market 




Chicken 


COWB 


Cows 


Than 
Cowa 






Hogs 




Broilers 


58 


28 


58 


123 


15 


103 


686 


123,667 


27 


12 


20 


44 


4 


25 


138 


13,500 


17 


6 


14 


34 


3 


14 


87 


7,833 


14 


4 


8 


29 


2 


7 


64 


6,533 


11 


3 


6 


25 


2 


5 


49 


5,333 


8 


2 


4 


22 




4 


37 


4,767 


6 


2 


3 


18 




3 


29 


3,500 


4 


1 


2 


14 




2 


23 


1.333 


3 


1 


1 


10 




2 


18 


967 


2 


1 


1 


6 




1 


10 


167 



TUBXtll 
POUMll 



Percentile 

91-100 

81-90 „. 

71-80 _ 

61-70 

51-60 , 

41-50 , 

31-40 , 

21-30 

11-20 

1-10 , 



41,00 
14,60,1 
12,00 ' 

5,0C 

4.0C 

1,8( 



'Us-; 



22 



Table 17. 


PerceiNtage of Farmers Not Working 


Off the Farm 


Who Produce Selected Classes of Livestock by 


the Age of 


Operators, 1955 






Age of Fakmers 




Kind op 

Livestock 






34 & 

Undeb 


35-44 


45-54 


55-64 


65-74 


75 & OVEB 


airy cows 


83 


71 


61 


71 




52 


57 


eef cows 


61 


61 


71 


52 




48 


36 


ther cattle 


61 


68 


63 


60 




64 


50 




17 


32 


34 


40 




39 


43 




26 
48 


36 

50 


34 
39 


35 

40 




26 

42 


14 


ogs raised 


43 


ilcken 


















9 
83 
30 


32 
89 
25 


16 
76 
32 


5 
77 
27 




12 
88 
29 







79 


her chickens .. 


32 


irkey poults .... 


4 


14 


13 


3 




3 





arkey broilers .. 


9 





3 



























1 
3 













4 






■ livestock kept small numbers of them. The 10 per cent of farmers who 


ipt the smallest numbers averaged only one dairy cow, head of other 


.ttle, sow or market hogs. In the case of sows, nearly 


50 per cent of all 


rmers who l 
nintinn nf 


.ept them 
1 ■iinof'nn 


had only 
1/ Drnflii 


3ne. 
ittinn tn 


Anrn nt 


rir 


inrntni* 


t» 



The age of the operator had little relation to the proportion of 
jll-time fanners who kept hens (Table 17). Some variations did occur 
tween age groups but there was no significant change. Consequent- 
it would be expected and did occur that there was no trend in the 
oportion of farmers keeping replacement birds as the age of operators 
I anged. 

A variation in the proportion of full-time farmers reporting most 
ijiier classes of livestock was associated with age. Variations were ir- 
ijjular, but upward or downward trends occurred with changes in age. 
I There was an increase in the proportion of the older farmers who 
ijpt ewes and goats. Ewes were kept by 17 per cent of the younger 
)|Tners. Two and a half times as many, or 43 per cent of all farmers 75 
< older, kept ewes. All the goats were kept by farmers that were 55 
] m of age or older. 

For all other classes of livestock, there was a general decrease in the 
jioportion of older farmers who kept them. This includes dairy cows, 
lef cows, other cattle, sows, hogs fed out, broilers, and turkeys. Dairy 
Cwswere kept by 83 per cent of the youngest farmers but only by 57 per 
C|it of the oldest. The proportion for beef cows decreased from 61 per 
tit to 36 per cent. The decline for other cattle was less than for cows, 
Ing from 61 per cent to 50 per cent. The trend for hogs was relatively 

23 



small. The largest proportion of farmers reporting chicken and turkey 
broilers was those aged 35 to 11. None of the full-time farmers 75 or 
older kept broilers or turkeys. 

Not only did the amount of most classes of livestock decrease with 
increased age for full-time fanners, but it also decreased for farmers 
who worked away from their farm (Table 18). Those farmers who did 
not work away from the farm or had less than 100 days away had the 
largest decrease in work units on livestock with increased age. The 
smallest decrease in work on livestock with increased age occurred with 
those farmers who spend 200 days or more away from the farm. On these 
farms the men under 35 years of age averaged 61 work units per f;um, 
whereas those past 75 had reduced their livestock business to 34 work 
units. 

Some livestock was kept by most farmers. Eighty-two per cent of 
tliose who do not work away from the farm had some productive live- 
stock. Ninety per cent of those with full-time work away kept productive 
livestock. 



Amount of Work on Livestock Compared with Work on Crops 

A little more than 50 per cent of the productive work was on live- 
stock (Table 19). There appears to be very little variation in the propor- 
tion of total work on crops or productive livestock that is due to either 
age of the operator or amount of work off the farm. 

Work Stock and Farm Power 

Twenty-foiu" per cent of the farmers who worked off the farm 20( . 
days or more kept work horses or mules (Table 20). The proportior 
keeping draft animals increased to 42 per cent for those farmers who die 
not work off the farm. As the age of these full-time farmers increased 
there was an increase in the proportion keeping work stock. Only |X T 

Table 1 8. Size of Livest<5ck Business in Productive Man Work UnW 
BY Agf. of Farmers and Days of Work Off Farm, 1955 



AOK OF 

Faiimers 



35 & under ... 

35-44 

46-54 

65-64 

85-74 

76 A oyer 

All ages 

Per cent with 
livestock 



486 
236 
288 
162 
181 



Days or Wokk Otf Fahm 
1-49 ' j 50-99 I 100^ 

Prntluctive man vjork units 

216 

233 

125 

65 

27 



24 



"able 19. Percentage of Productive Man Work on Farms That 
Was on Productive Livestock by Age of Farmers and Days 
of Work Off Farm, 1955 


Age of Fabmees 


Days op Work Off Farm 


None 


1-49 


50-99 


100-199 


200 & Over 




Per cent 
50 
70 
53 
60 
49 
55 
55 


Per cent 
67 
60 
52 
38 
64 
100 
57 


Per cent 
54 
59 
64 
43 
57 

56 


Per cent 
56 
53 
59 
35 
5S 

50 


Per cent 
63 


-44 


50 


1.54 


46 


■64 


53 


.74 


45 




100 




52 







/VBLE 20. Work Stock on Farms by the Farm Operator, Days of 
Work Off Farm and Age, 1955 



Oats of Wohk 

Off Fakm and 

Age OF 

Operators 


Work Horses and Mules 


Othei! Horses, Mules and Ponies 


Per cent 
Reporting 


Number Per 
Farm Reporting 


Per cent 
Reporting 


Number Per 
Farm Reporting 


lAYS OP Work 
Off Farm 


42 
47 
33 
24 
38 

26 
29 
34 
55 
42 
46 


2 

1 
2 

1 

2 
2 


6 

10 
6 
8 

7 

4 
11 
8 
8 
3 
7 


2 


-98 




00-199 





00 & over 


1 


1 OF Operators 
^OT Working 
Off Farm 

4 & under 

'5-44 


1 
2 


5-54 


2 


5-64 


2 




1 











I cut of the fanners under 35 kept work stock, whereas 46 per cent 
iliKse who were 75 and older kept them. 
Ihose who kept work stock averaged two head per farm. The 
d lage number did not vary with age nor with the amount of work 
o farm. 

Young work stock and ponies were less common. Fewer tlian 10 
< (lit of the farmers had them. Those who did averaged two per farm. 
X umbers of tractors on these farms were not recorded. However, 
;-!( Hniinary data in the J95-i Census of AgriculUire showed that many 
' farmers had no tractors. Those without tractors were not neces- 
ihose who had work stock. Census data showed that 31 per cent 
iic farmers had tractors and no work stock. Another 20 per cent had 
ti tors and one or more work animals. Twelve per cent had two or 

25 



more work, stock I)ut no tractor, and 8 per cent had only one work 
animal. The other 29 per cent had neither a tractor nor work stock. 

Many of the farmers had small aaeages in the various crops (see 
Table 1 1) and many had a small amount of work on all crops (see Table 
8). These small acreages are associated with the low degree of mechaniza- 
tion and the high labor requirements for crops in \Vest Virginia. Fann- 
ers with small acreages cannot economically justify large-scale equip- 
ment. As a result, more labor is used per acre than woidd be needed on 
acreages large enough to justify a higher degree of mechanization. Com- 
pared with the rest of the nation the labor used on most feed and forage 
crops is high." In West Virginia the labor used per acre on corn and small 
grain crops is three times more than it is for the average of all states. 
For hay crops it is about twice as much. 

Types of Farming 

Farms may be classified according to type by several methods. In 
this instance the classification was based on the productive man work 
units. An enterprise type was established for each farm that had 40 
jaer cent or more of the total work units on a specific enterprise. With 
this procedure a farm could have and few did have two major types. 
Farms that did not have 40 per cent of the productive work on any one 
major class of production were classified as general farms. 

Most of the farmers were carrying on a specialized type of agricul- 
ture. This was true for full-time farms and for part-time farms. Three 
fourths of the full-time farmers were specializing in the production of one 
major product (Table 21) . As the amount of work away from the farii 
increased, the amount of specialization increased. Of the farmers work 
ing away fi-om the farm for 200 days or more, Sfi per cent were special 
ized. 

Approximately half of all the farmers specialized in the productioi 
of a class of livestock or poultry. In terms of all classes of livestock 
there was little change in the proportion specializing in livestock will 
changes in work off farm. Hois-ever, within classes of livestock ther 
were some differences. A larger portion of farmers working 200 da\ 
or more off farm were specializing in dairy and sheep. A large propo 
tion of the full-time farmers were raising the combination of beef an 
daii-y cattle. About the same proportion of full-time fanners and fam 
ers working away from their fann 200 days or more were raising poultr 
However, there was more sjjecialization in broilers and turkeys amor 
the full time fanners. Farmers working 200 days or more away fro 
the farm were more specialized in hens. 



26 



Table 21. 



Type of Farming by the Amount of \V^ork Ofj 
THE Farm, 1955* 



TYPE OF 




Days op Woek Off Fabm 




Fabmino 


None 


1-99 


100-199 


200 & Over 




Per cent 
10 
4 


(5) 
(1) 
20 
17 

6 
1 
1 

11 
(5) 
(2) 
(3t 
26 
103 

3 


ppr cent 
22 

3 

i 
(2) 
(1) 
22 
12 

5 

1 

12 
(11) 

(2) 
20 
102 


Per cent 
20 
8 

S 
(S) 
(0) 

11 

6 

3 

8 
(3) 
(6) 

108 
S 


Per cnit 
17 


lav 


10 


'otato, tomato & truck 
rree fruits 


4 
4 


Peach _ 

Jalry 


(0) 


Seef 


13 


















Hens & replacements 


10 

(1) 
(1) 


.("iieral Farmt 


Total 




'roportlon with two 


g 







•Type Is classed on the basis of productive man work units. For any one type class, 
"I per cent or morp of the total work units on the farm had to be on the particular 
iterprlse. 

tXone of the above enterprises accounted for 40 per cent of the work units. 

About one-fifth of the full-time farmers were specializing in a crop. 
L larger proportion of those doing some work away from the farm had 
specialty crop. As the shift toward more crop specialty occurred there 
•as a shift away from general farming. 

About 10 per cent of all full-time farmers specialized in grain pro- 
uction. This included the production of corn, oats, wheat, and barley, 
II of which were hai^ested either for grain or roughage. Another 4 
er cent specialized in hay and 7 per cent in tree fruits. Most of the 
itter farms had sufficient apples to be classified as apple farms. The 
'.her had a combination of apples, peaches, and cherries. None of the 
irmers had a specialty in cherries. A smaller proportion of farmers 
ith 200 days or more work away from the farm had a specialty in fruit, 
owever, a larger portion of this same group had specialized production 
1 grain and in hay. 

.\bout 5 per cent of the farms were classified as having two special- 

es. This was possible because the classification was based on having 

( per cent of the work units on a particular enterprise. Two-thirds 

those who had two specialized classes had one specialty in either grain 

hay and the other in a roughage-consuming class of livestock. 

Although many farmers had a specialty production, very few had all 
their productive work on one enterprise. Yet many specialty enter- 
ic's x\ere utilizing well over half of the productive efforts on the farm 

27 



Table 22. Pkrckntace of thi. Tdtal Farm Work IInits on the 
Enterprise Which Determined the Type of Farm, 1955 



Typb of 




Days ok Wouk Off Fabm 




Pabm 


None 


1-99 


100-199 


200 & OVBB 




Pit cent 

S4 

7:) 

45 
81 
59 
51 
53 
48 
78 

74 


Per cent 
53 
4;! 
OG 
51 
51 
47 
49 

43 

69 


Per cent 
59 

42 

83 
02 
50 
58 

49 
64 


57 


Hay 


67 


Potato, tomato A truck ' 


07 
62 




54 


Beet 


51 




62 




64 




42 




44 


All poultry 


73 



(Table 22). Full-time farmers who were concentrating on fruit produc- 
tion averaged 81 per cent of all productive work on tree fruits. Only 
one in the entire group had all the protluctive work on the orchard 
aop. On those full-time farms classified as poultry, the productive work 
on ix)ulti7 accounted for 74 per cent of all productive work. On the 
farms where the operator worked away 200 days or more, 73 pei cent of 
all productive work on poultry farms was on poultry. 

Comparison of Major Types of Farms 

Even tliough the majority of the farmers specialized in one major 
enterprise or a closely related enterprise, there was considerable diversi- 
fication among other enterprises for the balance of the productive work 
This situation occurred with all types of farms (Table 23). Some ol 
all types of farms had corn, hay and pasture. All except the hay fami 
averaged one or more aaes of small grain. Orchards, however, were gen 
erally not found on farms that did not specialize in orchards. Some o 
all the types of farms kept livestock and hens. Turkeys usually wii 
restricted to farms that specialized in poultry. 

Farms classified as grain farms were generally small, averaging 17 
work units per fann, with half of tiiis total on corn and small graii 
Each of the other enterprises at counted for less than 10 per cent < 
ihe total work units on the farm. 

Hay farms were very small. They averaged 43 work units per farii 
none had more than 80 work units. These farms were operated by oldi 
men. In fact, the average age of 71 was older than it was for any othi 
type of farming group. 

Orchardisis had the largest fanns, were the youngest operators, ai 
the most specialized. Farms operated by orchardists averaged 1,151 wo 
units, and 97 acres of i)iodiicing orchard. (Jf this amount, 85 acres w( 

28 



Iable 23. Crops and Livestock Raised on Farms Where the 

Operators did Not Work Away From the Farm, Classified by 

Type of Farm, 1955* 



Co. farms 

lSS of fanner 
t'ork units 



orn 

mall grain 

oybeans 

ruck crops . 
ay 



pen pasture 

'oodland pasture 
retard 



airy cows . 
eef cows ... 
;her cattle 



ogs fed out .... 
licken broilers 



her cblx 

irkey poults .. 
Tkey broilers 



Type of Fakm 



175 
Acres 



1151 
Acres 



529 
211 



56 
283 
Acres 



Mixed 
Cattle 



444 
Acres 



141 
163 



640 
Acres 



17,350 
193 



3,558 
1.538 



252 
Acres 



327 
101 



•Only one type classification was 
cent or more work units on two 
highest percentage. This table does 
tomato farm. 



used tor each farm. The seven farms that had 40 
enterprises were classed according to the one with 
not include three sheep farms, two hog farms, and 



apples, eiglit in peaches, and four in cherries. Of the total productive 
jrk on the farm, 74 per cent was on apples and a total of 85 per cent on 
I tree fruits. The average age of these operators was 49-the only group 
Tt averaged less than fifty years of age. 

i nenty per cent of all the farmers in the area were specializing in 

living. Fifty-two per cent of their total productive work was on cows 

il 37 jjer cent on all dairy cattle. Some of the other productive work was 

< other livestock. However, most of it was on the production of feed 

' >ps. These dairy farmers had an average size of business of 345 work 

lightly smaller than the average of all farms. The age of dairy 

was the same as for all full-time farmers. 

vcnteen per cent of all fanners were classified as beef farmers. 

lid nearly the same total acreage of gTain and hay as dairy farmers 

1 more pasture. They carried 10 more head of cattle than dairy 

IS. However, the extra numbers were not sufficient to offset the 

i> dller amount of production work needed for a beef cow contrasted to 

3lairy cow. As a result, beef farmers total size of business expressed 

« work units was less, averaging 283 work units per farm. Of this 

a ount, 52 per cent was on cattle. 

29 



Some laini!, IkkI ncitlici enough beet nor dairy to be classified as a 
beef farm or a dairy farm. However, they had sufficient number of both 
to justify a separate classification of mixed cattle. These farmers had an 
average size of 114 work units, which was larger than the average size . 
of either dairy or beef farms. On these farms 24 per cent of the produc- , 
live work was on beei cows. 19 per cent on dairy cows, and a total of 54 | 
per cent on all cattle. Not only did these fanners have a larger toul , 
business than either the dairy specialty or beef specialty fann, but they , 
also had more corn, small grain, hay, pasture, sheep, and hogs. | 

Poultry farmers were nearly as specialized in their production as 
fruit farmers. On farms classified as poultry fanns, 83 per cent of aU , 
productive work was on poultry. Within this group 85 per cent special- , 
ized in a particular class of poultry. Nine farmers specialized in turkeys. , 
eight in laying hens, and five in chicken broilers. Those who specialized ,| 
in one of the three classes of poultry had from 72 to 76 per cent of all >\ 
work units on the class of poultry in which they specialized. 

Farmers specializing in poultry also raised some crops and kept I 
some roughage-consuming livestock. Their crops and livestock other 
than fruits and poultry were similar to those produced by farmers special- ^ 
izing in fruit. In size and age they were closer to the fruit farmers than i 
were the farmers classified into other types of farms. They were the sec- 
ond largest in size and were next youngest in average age. 

Besides the special types just described, there were six other farmers 
who had more than 40 per cent of their productive work on a specialized. , 
enterprise. 1 hrce were in sheep production, two in hogs, and one ir' ■ 

tomatoes. ■ • i 

One-fourth of the farmei-s who did not work away from their lariiv 
did not have 40 per cent of their work on any one of the major enter 
prises or closely related enterprises. These farms were classified a 
general farms. Ninety-two per cent of these were sufficiently divcrsifie. 
so that none of them had 75 per cent of all the farm work units on eithe 
crop or livestock. 

The average size of business on the general farms was 32 per cei 
smaller than the average for full-time farms in the area. This work w; 
fairly evenly distributed between crops and livestock, with 52 per cei 
on livestock and 48 on crops. The average of these fanns showed 
little more productive work for corn (20 per cent of the productive wo. 
units) than for the other major enterprises. Beef cows were second 
imporunce widi 14 per cent, followed in order of decreasing size 1 
hay, hens, and dairy cows; anyone of which accounted for more than 
. per cent of the productive work. 



30 



alue of Products Sold 

With the farm businesses as small as they were it is not surpris- 
ig that the farm income was low. According to the Census of Agricul- 
ire, the total value of farm products sold in 1954 was less than $1,200 on 
J per cent of all the farms in the four-county area (Table 24). On 73 
er cent of the fanns the sales were less than $2,500 and only 15 per 
!nt had sales of $5,000 or more. On some farms the gross sales were 
ibstantial. Three per cent of all fainiers in the area had sales of $25,- 
)0 or more in 1954. 

On 47 per cent of the farms, the non-farm income exceeded the value 
fami products sold. Even at that the total income from all sources 
is probably not large because 66 per cent of the farmers surveyed 
Drked away from their fanns less than 100 days. 

)ur-County Area Compared with the State° 

The average farm income in this four-county area was larger than 
le average for the rest of the State. In the entire State, the total value 
I farm products sold in 1954 was less than $1,200 on 81 per cent of the 
Irms. On 89 per cent of the farms it was less than $2,500. Only 8 per 
I at of all fanns in the State had sales of $5,000 or more. 

A comparison of selected items on fanns in the four-county area 
ith the same items for the entire State shows that farms in the area 
( re generally larger. The number of acres in farms and the aopland 
Irvested was more than 50 per cent larger. There were 30 per cent 
Dre milk cows and ewes per farm and a still larger proportion of 
t .-f cows. The fanners had twice as many sows, hens, and broilers. 

. .*'^?''*,.*'*'"'' '"kim from: U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Census, 1954. Censux 
» liiriculturc — Prelimimiry. 



Ri.K 21. Proportion oi Farms, in Berkeley, Morgan, Hamp.shire. 
'iNERAL Counties and in the State by Economic Classes, 1954* 



Economic 


Value of Fabm Peoddcts 
Sold 


Pek Cent of All Farms 




4 Co. Area*' 


State 




.$25,000 or more 
$10,000 - $24,999 
$5,000 - $9,999 
$2,500 - $4,999 
$1,200 - $2,499 
$250 - $1,190 

$250 - $1,199 
Less than $250 


3 
4 
8 
12 
13 
11 

51 
15 
34 




J 




ill 




IV 




V _ 

Vlt 


S 
13 

32 
17 
51 






-1 





X Department of Commerce, Bureau of Cenous--, 1964. Census of Agriculture 

■ Includes all farms In the five oountleK. Th« other Ubies do not Include farms 

• area with sandstone an J shalo soils. 
rmit were classlflod as iomm«rclal Clabs VI provided the farm operator worked 
ii:in lens than lOo days and provided the family Income from nonfarm sources 

'liiin the value of all fnrni pro.luctM sold. The others were clayslfled as part-time 

31 



Fanucis in ihu area avctc betUT ccjuipijcd wiili poun than 
other farmers in West Virginia. Filiy-onc per cent of the farmers in 
the area had tractors, whereas only 22 per cent of the farmers in West 
Virginia had them. In the area, 20 per cent of the farmers had no trac 
tors, but they had one or more work animals. For the State, 38 pei 
cent of the farmers without tractors had one or more head of work stock 
The other 29 per cent of the farmers in the area and 39 per cent in th. 
State own no tractor or work stock. 

A larger portion of the farmers in the area spent their time on thi 
farm In the area, 47 per cent did some work off the farm: the Stat 
average was 57 per cent. In the area, 34 per cent of the operators o 
Census-defineil farms worked away from the farm 100 days or more 
the State average was 43 per cent. When non-fami family income was con, 
pared with farm sales, 17 per cent of the farm families in the area ha 
other income exceeding farm sales. For the State, 51 per cent of a 
farmers had non-farm income exceeding farm sales. 

Conclusions 

This report shows that the economic position of the average farm 
in the area leaves much to be desired. Even more important, however, 
the position of the many farmers who are below the average. 

The majority of the farmers in the area do not work off the far 
Even though ihcy are probably fully employed on their farms, t 
amount of work at income-producing jobs is so small that the farm sa 
arc very low. The large amount of work at non-income jobs is influent 
by the physical farm condition. Farms have large acreages with a a 
siderablc portion thai is eiilicr not producing a salable i)rf)duct or has 
inherently low capacity to produce. 

Labor used on most feed and forage crops is high in comparis 
with the rest of the nation. In West Virginia the labor used per a 
on corn and small grain crops is three times more than it is for i 
average of all states. For hay crops it is about twice as much. 

The age structure of the farmers suggests that the number of yoi 
men beginning to farm is not so large as the number who are likeh 
retire. This may lead to further abandonment of farms or to a ( 
bination of farming units. The situation that is occurring in the . 
is not knoun from this study. However, the data show that tl 
full-time farmers aged from 25 to 34 have a size of business tha 
several times larger than for any other age group. 

Many full-time fanners 55 years of age or older had a size of 1 
ness so small that it is unlikely that they could have sufficient inr 
for much, if any, social security coverage. 

32